Assimilative Memory; or, How to Attend and Never Forget

Here “am” and “an” occur in alphabetical order, and is a case of In., and “jam,” meaning pressing together, and “cle(a)ve” meaning to separate, are opposites, hence it is also an example of Exclusion.

5. Grover Cleveland affords the first instance where the two terms of a President are separated by the full term of another President (Benjamin Harrison). ←ToC

The method here used of memorising the order of the English sovereigns from William I., the Conqueror, to Victoria possesses the following novelties:—

(1) We learn the order of the entire series of thirty-seven sovereigns by means of the relations, direct and indirect, which we establish with the reigning sovereign, Victoria.

(2) The precise credit is claimed for this method which it is entitled to receive. In a list of proper names we sometimes have several surnames alike, with usually a difference of Christian names, as in the presidential series we have—William Henry Harrison and Benjamin Harrison, and John Adams and John Quincy Adams, and we also sometimes have the same Christian names prefixed to different surnames, as James Madison and James Monroe. But in the Sovereigns of England, from William I. to Victoria, we have many Christian names alike, and the differences indicated by ordinal numbers, as George I., George II., George III., George IV. This order of the English Kings is most extraordinary, neither the Popes of Rome, nor the French, nor any other list of kings, furnishing any parallel in more than a few incidents. It is these unique coincidences and recurrences that make it so easy to find relations between these sovereigns. This method is not applicable to the American Presidents, Prime Ministers of England, or hardly any other series.

(3) No accidental relations of parts of names is resorted to, as was done in the case of the American Presidents.

(5) The series is completely worked out and nothing is left to chance or possible mistakes so liable to be committed by novices in dealing for the first time with a new process that has to be applied to many details.

(6) When the series is carefully studied and the relations painstakingly characterised, it is quickly learned and it is hard to forget.

(7) When the series is learned by this method and the relations are occasionally reviewed and identified, its recital both ways once or twice a day for a month helps to develop the Attention as well as the Assimilative powers.

(8) The exact name of each Sovereign is learned. The student relies on real relations and names, and not on unidentified jingles of threes and threes and twos and twos, like three Edwards and three Henrys and two Edwards and two Henrys, with the inevitable necessity of having afterwards to learn which Edward and which Henry was meant, &c. But summations can follow specifications.

(9) Pestalozzi [1745–1827] taught that we must proceed from the “known” to the “unknown;” but this principle mainly applies to learning the words of a foreign language. When we begin to learn such words they are wholly unknown to us. But in learning ordinary series of names or prose or poetry by heart, all the names and words used may be equally well known by us; but it is mainly the order in which these occur that we wish to memorise, and we begin at the beginning and proceed as we learn on from the Better Known or Best Known. In the list of American Presidents the series extends back to a little more than a century; but in the case of the English Sovereigns, when we begin with the Conqueror, the series extends back to 1066—upwards of 800 years—and, although in such a series the names of all the Sovereigns may be known, yet the latest is vastly better known to us than the earliest. In such a case it may be most useful to begin with the Best Known.

We begin with the Best Known, or Victoria, and we take note that she is an independent Queen, since she has never shared sovereignty with anyone; but Mary, of “William III. and Mary,” was not an independent Queen, because she did share the Sovereign Power with her husband. Hereafter, when I use the word Queen I mean an independent Queen, except when Mary, of “William III. and Mary,” is mentioned, and her name will be used only in Connection with William III. England has had only four independent Queens, namely, Mary [Tudor], Elizabeth, Anne, and Victoria.

Now let us recall in the forward and reverse order what we have learned so far. William I., William II., Edward VI., Mary, Elizabeth, James I., James II., William III. and Mary, Anne, George I., George II., George III., George IV., William IV., and Victoria, and the order reversed is Victoria, William IV., George IV., George III., George II., George I., Anne, William III. and Mary, James II., James I., Elizabeth, Mary, Edward VI., William II., William I.

(II.) Disregarding for the moment the four periods of what is usually called the Commonwealth, we see that between Elizabeth and William III. and Mary, are four monarchs, the two James and the two Charles. We have already learned that Elizabeth was followed by James I. and that William III. and Mary were preceded by James II. Hence we see that the two Charles must come between the two James, and, of course, that Charles I. must precede Charles II., and that the order of these four monarchs must be James I., Charles I., Charles II., and James II.—a plain case of Con. reversed. We saw that there were two of these four monarchs before the Commonwealth; there must then be two after it, making James I. and Charles I. before the Commonwealth and Charles II. and James II. after it.

On the day that Charles I. was executed (January 30, 1649), the Parliament (the House of Commons) abolished the kingly office and House of Lords, and appointed a Council of State of 41 members, which with the House of Commons was to be the government. Intermediate then between Charles I. and Charles II. there came—

Here we see there was a Council of State and Parliament at the beginning and close of these intermediates, and between them came Oliver Cromwell and his son, Richard Cromwell. Charles I., followed by Council of State and Parliament, made a case of Exclusion and the Council of State and Parliament, followed by the Protector Oliver Cromwell, gives another example of Ex. and a case of In. between Oliver Cromwell and his son Richard, who inherited the protectorate, but a case of Ex. again between the powerful Oliver and his weak son Richard, and another example of Ex. between the protectorate of Richard Cromwell and the Council of State and Parliament, and another between the latter and the full-fledged monarchy of Charles II.

Now review what we have learned so far and we have William I., William II., Edward VI., Mary, Elizabeth, James I., Charles I., Council of State and Parliament, Oliver Cromwell, Richard Cromwell, Council of State and Parliament, Charles II., James II., William III. and Mary, Anne, George I., George II., George III., George IV., William IV., and Victoria. Reverse the recital and we have Victoria, William IV., George IV., George III., George II., George I., Anne, William III. and Mary, James II., Charles II., Council of State and Parliament, Richard Cromwell, Oliver Cromwell, Council of State and Parliament, Charles I., James I., Elizabeth, Mary, Edward VI., William II., and William I.

Recalling the succession from William I. to Edward VI., we have William I., William II., Henry I., Stephen, Henry II., Richard I., John, Henry III., Edward I., Edward II., Edward III., Richard II., Henry IV., Henry V., Henry VI., Edward IV., Edward V., Richard III., Henry VII., Henry VIII., Edward VI. Reversing the order, we have Edward VI., Henry VIII., Henry VII., Richard III., Edward V., Edward IV., Henry VI., Henry V., Henry IV., Richard II., Edward III., Edward II., Edward I., Henry III., John, Richard I., Henry II., Stephen, Henry I., William II., and William I.

We conclude with the recital both ways of the thirty-seven Sovereigns from William I. to Victoria.

When my pupils have gained the quick perception and instantaneous apprehension which always reward the studious use of In., Ex., and Con., they can, amongst other new achievements, always remember and never forget figures and dates.

Pike’s Peak, the most famous in the chain known as the Rocky Mountains in America, is fourteen thousand one hundred and forty-seven feet high. Instantly, one who is trained in the use of In., Ex., and Con., perceives that there are two fourteens [Syn. In.] in these figures, and that the last figure is half of fourteen, or 7 In. by W. and P., making 14,147. Of course, one who is not practised in analogies, in discovering similarities and finding differences would not have noticed any peculiarity in these figures which would enable him to remember them. Few people ever notice any relations among numbers. But any possible figures or dates always possess relations to the mind trained in In., Ex., and Con.

Fujiyama, the noted volcano of Japan, is twelve thousand three hundred and sixty-five feet high. Does any pupil who has mastered the first lesson and who is expert in the use of In., Ex., and Con., fail to notice that here we have the disguised statement that the height of this mountain is expressed in the number of months and days of the year, 12,365 feet high? These figures drop into that mould and henceforth are remembered without difficulty. These are remarkable coincidences no doubt, but are not all sets of figures similarly impressive coincidences to the trained eye, and the active, thinking and assimilative mind?

The population of New Zealand, exclusive of natives, is 672,265. Bringing the first two figures into relation with the last two we have 67 and 65—a difference of 2 only. The two groups of 672 and 265 have the figure 2 at the end of the first group, and another 2 at the beginning of the second group. These two twos are in sequence (Con.), and each of them expresses the difference between 67 and 65. Thought about in this way, or in any other, the series becomes fixed in mind, and will be hard to forget.

The population of Sydney is 386,400. Here are two groups of three figures each. The first two figures of the first group are 38, and the first two figures of the second group are 40—a difference of 2. Two taken from 8 leaves 6, or the third figure of the first group, and 2 added to the first figure of the second group makes 6. The 40 ends with a cypher, and it is a case of Syn. In. that the last figure of the second group or the third figure of it should likewise be a cypher. Besides, those who know anything at all about the population of Sydney must know that it is vastly more than 38,640, and hence that there must be another cypher after 40, making the total of 386,400.

Let the attentive pupil observe that this method does not give any set of rules for thinking in the same manner in regard to different sets or example of numbers. That would be impossible. Thinking or finding relations amongst the objects of thought must be differently worked out in each case, since the figures themselves are differently grouped.

The foregoing cases in regard to population will suffice for those who live in the Australian colonies, and to others they will teach the method of handling such cases, and leave them the pleasure of working out the process in regard to the population where they reside, or other application of the method they may wish to make.

Great encouragement is found in the circumstance that after considerable practice in dealing with numerous figures through In., Ex., and Con., new figures are self-remembered from the habit of assimilating numbers. They henceforth make more vivid impressions than formerly.

Inclusion embraces cases where the same kind of facts or the principles were involved, or the same figures occur in different dates with regard to somewhat parallel facts—End of Augustus’s empire [death] 14 A.D.—End of Charlemagne’s [death] 814 A.D., and end of Napoleon’s [abdication] 1814 A.D.

Exclusion implies facts from the opposite sides relating to the same events, conspicuously opposite views held by the same man at different periods, or by different men who were noticeably similar in some other respects, or antithesis as to the character or difference in the nationality [if the two nations are frequent foes] of different men in whose careers, date of birth, or what not, there was something distinctly parallel—Egbert, first King of England, died 837. William IV., last King of England, died 1837. What a vivid exclusion here for instance: Abraham died 1821 B.C., and Napoleon Bonaparte died 1821 A.D.

Concurrences are found in events that occur on the same date or nearly so, or follow each other somewhat closely.

Garibaldi [the Italian] and Skobeleff [the Russian] [Exclusion, being of different countries], both great and recklessly patriotic generals [Inclusion] and both favourites in France [Inclusion], died in the same year, 1882 [Concurrence]. Longfellow and Rossetti, both English-speaking poets [Inclusion] who had closely studied Dante [Inclusion] died in the same year, 1882 [Concurrence].

Haydn, the great composer, was born in 1732, and died in 1809; this date corresponds to that of the birth [Exclusion and Concurrence] of another famous composer [Inclusion], Mendelssohn, who himself died in 1847, the same year as O’Connell.

Lamarck [1744–1829], advocated a theory of development nearly resembling the Darwinian Theory of the Origin of Species [In.]. This he did in 1809, the year in which Charles Darwin was born [Con.]. Darwin’s writings have altered the opinions of many as to the Creation, and the year of his birth was that of the death of Haydn, the composer of the Oratorio “The Creation.” [Con. and Ex.].

John Baptiste Robinet taught the gradual development of all forms of existence from a single creative cause. He died in 1820, the year in which Herbert Spencer, the English Apostle of Evolution, was born [In., Ex., and Con.].

Galileo, founder of Modern Astronomy, born in 1564—Shakespeare’s birth year [Con.]—died in 1642, the very year in which Sir Isaac Newton was born. Galileo’s theory was not proved but merely made probable, until the existence of the laws of gravitation was established, and it was Newton who discovered gravitation. This is an instance of Inclusion as to the men, of Exclusion and Concurrence as to date of birth and death.